memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Pluto
So, there's discussion about this whole "Pluto demotion" going on on several talk pages, including (if there are others, add them to the list): *Template_talk:SolSystem *Talk:Planet *Talk:Sol system *Talk:Pluto *Image talk:Earth solar system poster, Cardassians.jpg *Memory_Alpha:Votes_for_deletion (regarding deletion of the redirect Dwarf planet) Additional discussion is going on via IRC, as it seems. This is a horrible mess and won't help in the least if we're trying to come to some sort of consensus. I suggest to discontinue all these discussions but one (this one?), and then move the outcome of this discussion to whatever talk page seems fitting. Let me start with a comment I originally left on Talk:Pluto before this all started: ---- Can't hurt to discuss this now, though, before the shit hits the fan tomorrow and people will be editing this back and forth. I think there are two questions that we have to take into account, with #1 being the more important one for us: #Has there been any reference to Pluto as a "planet", or as "the ninth planet", specifically? If that is the case, we should continue to call Pluto a planet here, and eventually add a background comment if that differs from real-world classification as decided by the IAU. #If Pluto has not been called a planet... Has there been a reference to the Sol system consisting of nine planets? If that is the case, we should note on this article that this probably is the ninth planet referenced, although this doesn't match real-world classification any longer. In any other case, we should just adopt the IAU definition and change our articles accordingly. My guess: By tomorrow, we'll end up with an article that starts by stating that "''Pluto is a small planet in the Sol system, ...". -- Cid Highwind 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ---- Apart from the fact that the link to "small planet" should obviously have been one to "dwarf planet", this still is my view on the situation. Regarding #1, there hasn't been any confirmation of Pluto being called a "planet" specifically, yet, and it seems as if such doesn't exist. There's the poster art used in the production of DS9, but I believe using that as a source to keep Pluto as a planet would stretch our policy of using production art beyond hope. Even if we accept that what was on the wall in the classroom ''was exactly this poster, we still can't be sure about its "in-universe" relevance. Perhaps it was just a reproduction of an historical poster to show what people on earth knew about their solar system 400 years ago? Regarding the question of whether to use real-life scientific data and conventions in our article, please make sure that whatever position you defend, it's consistent throughout the site. If you think that we shouldn't call Pluto a "dwarf planet" because "scientific conventions in the Trek universe might be different", then why call it a "planet" instead, why add info about exactly "9 existing planets" to Sol system, etc., if that, too, "might be different"? -- Cid Highwind 12:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC) :There is no way to justify adding the new definition to the site as though it was canon. The writers and producers of every single episode of Trek, written over the last 40 years, have operated knowing for a fact that Pluto was a planet, and that if they mentioned Pluto in dialogue, it would be recognised by the viewers as the ninth and outermost planet of the solar system. It would have been stupid for the writers to ever specifically state that it was a planet in dialogue because it was the most common of knowledge. There is no way that the writers could have had the definition of planet, passed yesterday, in their minds, at any time in the last 40 years. In Trek, Pluto is a planet, the ninth planet of the solar system. And if you doubt that is what the producers believed, then look in the Star Trek: Encyclopedia under Pluto. "Pluto. The ninth planet of the Sol system." There is no way to fit this new information into Trek, as though it always existed, without writing fan fiction. --Bp 13:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC) On the other hand, in every instance where Pluto has been used, it hasn't been important at all what exactly it is, just that it is some object on the fringes of the Sol system. If it hasn't been called a planet on-screen, it might be as much "fan fiction" to assume that in the fictional universe, Earth scientists have gone back to calling it a planet at some time, or never stopped doing that. Also, your proposal seems to be slightly inconsistent, because it would mean that for every real-life object that has been referenced, we would need to define exactly when it was used last and then use knowledge of that time to base our article upon. What happens if the next movie happens to reference the Sol system? Do we continue to call Pluto a planet on its page, but claim that Pluto isn't a planet on the Sol system page, because we're using differing knowledge for the two articles? Somehow, that strikes me as a bad idea... -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC) :The Trek universe is not this universe. That is quite demonstrable. Because something happens in reality, does not mean we have to fit it into Trek in some way (the writers might try to, but WE do not). We do not have to assume anything like "Earth scientists have gone back to calling it a planet at some time" because the new definition never happened. The canon universe only exists from 1966 to 2005, when Pluto was definitely a Planet. When the next canon installment of Trek comes out, it may change. For now, however, we are writing fiction to add a definition that could not possibly have been in the minds of any canon trek production staff. --Bp 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC) :::In most of our Astronomical articles it has been standard ops procedure to add a small bit of noncanon (obv. non contradicted) "framing info" -- for example, the Alpha Beta Zeta system might be mentioned on Trek, but we will add that in 1999 it was discovered to be a trinary and is 47 LY from Earth -- and not go into any further detail. i dont see why Pluto should be any different (or require this much discussion). -- Captain M.K.B. 15:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC) ::::The poster Jorg found, with external links to it at Image talk:Earth solar system poster, Cardassians.jpg, shows Pluto as a planet. Therefore, since this was seen on screen, it is canon the Pluto is a planet. I don't buy Bp's argument, because writers intent is meaningless unless it is expressed to us. It is just us speculating as to what we feel the writers were thinking. I can just as easily say that the writers did not call Pluto a planet because they did not like it being one. It does not matter, though, since we have this poster that says it is a planet. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC) :::::You could not "just as easily say" that. Not at all. There is logic behind the idea that they believed it was a planet. It is in the encyclopedia, as well as everyone believing it was a planet. Did you even read the discussion? --Bp 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Not only did I read it, but I had it with you on IRC last night. I still don't buy it, and no matter how many times you repeat it to me, I am not going to buy it. It does not matter, though, as Jorg has found canon evidence that it is a planet. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC) :::::::You dont buy that the producers who wrote "Pluto. The ninth planet of the Sol system" believed like everyone else that pluto was a planet? I also refere you to Cid's comment about the poster that you did not seem to notice. You haven't addressed anyone's points in any way except to ignore them. --Bp 23:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Thank you for being mean, and attacking, and in my mind bordering on personal attacks on me. I have about 10 things I am trying to do at the same time at the moment, so I would ask you to BE NICE! As for your argument, I have said to you elsewhere why I don't buy it, but I will say it again here. A) Whether the writers intended or not, or thought people were smart or not, does not matter, they never said it was a planet. B) Writers' intent belongs as a background note. We would do the same in any other case, as I understand how MA works. C) In response to Cid, yes, I suppose it is possible that this is a 400 year old poster. The problem is we have no evidence of that. It is speculation. In addition, the fact is that we have NOTHING in Star Trek that says Pluto is not a planet, and this poster that says it is. I saygo with the poster, since it is the only thing in Star Trek that seems to say one way or the other. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)